Wednesday, November 30, 2011

As if we didn't have enough moral dilemmas in this day and age, the Gardasil vaccine has presented us with just one more. Whether or not to inoculate your child against harmful and immoral behavior is the latest moral dilemma which Gardasil has brought to the table.

The combined oral contraceptive pill was first approved for use in the United States in 1960. I personally recall at this time, many young girls in the neighborhood, starting at only 14 yrs. of age, suddenly needing to be put on the "Pill", as it became popularly known. "My mother took me to the doctor for my menstrual irregularities and cramps," they would tell me, "and the doctor put me on the "Pill". Following soon afterward, these girls became the most popular dates for the boys in the neighborhood. Can you guess why? Those of us who did not take the Pill, for our menstrual dilemmas, sat home on Saturday night. Hmmm.

The real reason that these young girls had been put on the pill, was certainly obvious to the young girls themselves; figuring that their parents simply did not want the embarrassment of a pregnant teenage daughter. And so was born the new age of "Free Love" and "Women's Liberation", and the greatest age of sexual promiscuity probably since the ancient Roman times.

The widespread phenomenon of condom distribution among youth followed upon the heels of the Pill revolution, as apparently putting their daughters on theis oral contraceptive had not only led to sexual promiscuity among young people, but had fostered a false sense of security among them as well. This has led to today's commercials for the Pill now having to add the disclaimer, that the pill does not prevent against sexually transmitted diseases. Unfortunately, what they have left out of this disclaimer, is the fact that the Pill does not prevent against getting your heart broken either. The so called "Women's Lib" era had simply made women more vulnerable than ever before. Wake up girls!

And the damage control continues on, as today's parents are faced with another moral dilemma regarding their child's sexual behavior, and how to protect them from the negative side-effects of such. The Pill, which was supposed to be a magical answer to give women sexual freedom and control over their reproductive faculties, has led to today's dilemma of how to control sexually transmitted diseases. Today parents are being told they need to vaccinate their young girls, and now young boys, against certain cancers which result from a virus contracted through sexual contact. The snow ball keeps getting bigger and bigger as it keeps rolling along the path of "sexual license".

So, let's take a look at today's newest weapon in the arsenal to protect their new age of sexual liberation. The US Governments Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), reports that Gardasil has been linked to 49 sudden deaths, 213 permanent disabilities, 137 reports of cervical dysplasia, 41 reports of cervical cancer and thousands of adverse event reports ranging from headaches, nausea, genital warts anaphylactic shock, grand mal convulsions, coma and paralysis. All this, and it only prevents against 2 of the 100 different strains of HPV, the virus which can cause cancer. On top of all that, how many other adverse reactions are there that have not been reported, because the victim does not know about how to file an adverse reaction report, or where to even go to do such.

Weighing the risks of Gardasil against the actual protection it supposedly gives, is what parent's must now decide for their adolescent children. Furthermore, they must fear giving their kid's the same message which their grandparent's generation gave their daughters by putting them on the Pill; that of assuming they will be sexually immoral. The effects of the Gardasil vaccine, have to date, only been surmised, not scientifically proven.

So where have all these miraculous prophylactics of modern medicine led us to? Is there really a prophylactic against the repercussions of SIN!

Friday, November 25, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyljukBE70Image-maker, Alexander Tsiaras, has worked as an associate professor of medicine and a chief of scientific visualization at Yale University.He has participated in developing scientific visualization software, enabling him to “paint” human anatomy using volume data. His task at Yale was to write many of the algorithms and code for NASA to do virtual surgery in preparation for astronauts going into deep space flights so they could be kept in robotic pods.

It was during this process that he was enabled to intricately see things about the human preborn body. By using special scanning technologies, which he tracked in a very detailed manner, a baby’s development could be looked at in great detail.

In his words, these pictures were enough to make one marvel at the complexity. He even acknowledged that the human body is—get this—so structured that “it was hard not to attribute divinity to it.” Yes, this is a Yale scientist finding it difficult not to give God glory for the wonderful way in which we were knit together in our mothers’ wombs.

For centuries, physicians, scientists and artists alike have attempted to comprehend how life begins in a mother’s womb and matures into the miracle of a baby. Who would have thought that Yale and NASA would play a key role in showing there’s undeniably beautiful and amazingly defined life inside? It’s really exciting to consider if you think about it.

In his words, these pictures were enough to make one marvel at the complexity. He even acknowledged that the human body is—get this—so structured that “it was hard not to attribute divinity to it.” Yes, this is a Yale scientist finding it difficult not to give God glory for the wonderful way in which we were knit together in our mothers’ wombs.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

On this Thanksgiving 2011, while the Occupy Wall Streeters have made their complaints heard about the inequities of life, I would like to bring up the famous biblical story of the Widow's Mite. We should all be familiar with the story of the poor woman, who came to the temple one day and deposited a few measly coins in the collection box. Jesus contrasted her small donation with that of others who were much more monetarily endowed; pointing out that she had "given from her want". He teaches his apostles, that her miniscule donation had required a far greater sacrifice, than those who had far more to give. In fact, Jesus hints that those who had more, had probably given way less than they could have afforded, in comparison to the poor widow, who had given all she had.

The Occupy Wall Streeters have been singing the age old tune of the haves and the have-nots, which is at the top of the hit parade these days; especially since Obama took office. I also find this in stark contrast to the Widow's Mite, as well as the 1st Pilgrims, who celebrated the 1st Thanksgiving way back in 1620. This attitude of entitlement has taken over the attitude of thankfulness, as well as asking what we can give, as opposed to what we can get.

We can all find something to be thankful for, even in the midst of an inequitable and corrupt world. We can all look more to what we are able to contribute, even from our want, instead of being cry babies over what the other guy has that we don't have. Yes, much of what the other guy has may very well be "ill gotten gains" (another term from my parent's generation); but they can keep their ill gotten gains as far as I'm concerned. I don't want their booty.

As a child growing up in the 1950's, a time of relative plenty for most Americans, my family had far less than my contemporaries; and my siblings and I were considered the "poor kids" in the neighborhood." Did this bother me? I won't lie; sometimes it did. There were times when I was ashamed of my shabby, 2nd hand clothing, in a school where all the other little girls and boys were adequately attired in the newest styles of the times. We did not have things like potato chips and Twinkies in our household cupboard, as the other neighborhood kids did. And yes, I got made fun of because of my out of date and worn out clothing, which did not fit my skinny frame. But, did I really consider myself to be poor? Did I think that the world was unfair, and that somebody out there owed me something? More importantly, did I see myself, as someone who had "nothing to give"?

Au Contrare! Whenever things came in the mail, from missions, showing pictures of poor little starving children, with swollen bellies and flies swarming around their heads, I would inevitably ask my mother, "can we give them some money?" Even though I at times had holes in my own shoes, I still wanted to give some money to those poor kids in the missions. And so we did. We gave from our want, as the widow in the Bible; and I was so happy to be able to help others. I did not focus on those who had more than myself; rather I looked to those who had less, and sought to find something out of my own want to give them. On top of that, I was "thankful" for every little thing that the Good Lord had given me. I counted my blessings, as my grandparent's generation had always taught me; and I learned the virtue of "not feeling sorry for myself".

This is a world of inequities and unfair situations; and I am not saying that we should not endeavor to rectify these inequities, whenever and however we can. But, always remembering, that it is not about what we can get, as it is about what we can give - and always giving thanks for what we do have, instead of looking at what we don't have. Instead of seeing ourselves as have-nots, see ourselves as people who have much to give, and much to be thankful for. Realizing, that though we may have less than some, we will always have more than others. Let's see how can we help those others, instead of how we can help ourselves .. to the rich man's booty.

To this very day, looking at our financial situation, especially since my husband has been out of work for quite some time, we still get piles of mail from various missions and causes and suffering
people, to which my husband and I still strive to imitate the widow in the Bible. We still prefer to see ourselves, as people who have much to give, no matter what our circumstances.

So, if you think the world is filled with inequities - instead of looking to see how much more you can get for yourself - try and see how much more you can give. For if we ALL gave a little more, there would be a little less inequity in the world. And most of all ... let us give thanks, for the many blessings we do have, which the Good God bestows on the rich and poor alike. The best things in life are still free.

Friday, November 18, 2011

While the media is concentrating on the Occupy Wall Streeters in New York, and Mayor Bloomberg is rationalizing the protesters, New York City reports that there are 1 in 6 deaths, 1,200 in total, among developmentally disabled persons. State and privately run homes have been blamed for unnatural or unknown causes in these deaths. The New York case-files, in fact, suggest the deaths were caused by neglect, and could have been easily prevented. In fact, the editors from Albany Times Union Newspaper, called the situation a disgrace; especially given the the fact that the state spends $10 billion a year for the care of the developmentally disabled. That much money, and 1 in 6 developmentally disabled people are dying?

To make matters even worse, the causes of these deaths are totally preventable. New York case files suggest the deaths were caused by neglect and could have been easily prevented. Case in point: James Michael Taylor, a 41 yr. old quadriplegic, was placed in a tub by his caregiver, who turned on the water and then left the room. The water rose over his head, and he slowly drowned in 15 minutes. Only God knows what went through his mind as the water rose.

Let's take a trip now to the Occupy Wall Street fiasco. The mayor has defended the protesters, and this has been a feeding frenzy for the media. A slew of New York politicians criticized Mayor Bloomberg, when he finally ordered the eviction of the vermin infested protesters, for violating their civil rights. One has to question, is Mayor Bloomberg investigating the 1,200 deaths of his developmentally disabled citizens? Where's the media coverage? I have watched, ad-nausea, the continuing support of anarchists and the like, who exhibit the most vile ways of expressing their freedom of speech. I also have to add, many of them can't even talk in any kind of coherent or intelligible fashion.

Why this preference by the media for covering "marauders", while the disabled in the same city are being neglected to the cause of death. Perhaps, Bobby Schindler said it best: "These figures reflect society's growing callousness toward the disability community ... because a person's physical appearance changes, because a person isn't able to do all the things an able bodied person can do, somehow their life is devalued.

These able bodied Occupy Wall Street marauders, prey on a civilized society, have much more to be thankful for than they realize. And instead they should be more concerned with their truly disadvantaged brothers and sisters. A civilized society is one which should be sensitive to all people, especially those who are in most need, and cannot care for themselves.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin reviewing the new national health care law, commonly known as Obama Care. A decision is expected in the spring.

As you know, Lake County Right to Life strongly and totally opposes the ironically named Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--here are some reasons why:

It certainly doesn't protect unborn babies, because the law expands government involvement in abortion.

It certainly will not protect the elderly or physically vulnerable, because the law includes health care rationing.

When the bill was being considered in Congress, a key amendment preventing government funding of abortion or abortion coverage in insurance plans was dead on arrival in the pro-abortion Senate.

Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee notes that "the time for petition campaigns is past," because you can't lobby the Supreme Court. He adds that those who disagree with ObamaCare must work to shift control of the White House and Senate in the 2012 election so the bill can be repealed. Certainly a position Lake County Right to Life strongly supports.

As the Supreme Court begins reviewing this law, one important issue concerns Obama appointed Justice Elena Kagan. The Supreme Court is closely divided, often ruling 5-4. Before being nominated to the Court, Justice Kagan was Obama's solicitor general, which means she was the person appointed to represent the federal government before the Supreme Court. "As such, throughout the Obama Care debate, she headed the office that was responsible for formulating the administration's legal defense of ObamaCare," notes Jeffrey H. Anderson, senior fellow in health care studies at the Pacific Research Institute and former director of the Benjamin Rush Society.

The law states than federal judges are required to recuse themselves if they have been involved with a case before it reaches the bench or if it is questionable that they would be impartial. When asked during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings about whether she'd ever been asked her opinion or offered views on legal issues related to ObamaCare, she answered no.

However, emails between Kagan and Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, released by the Department of Justice last week, belie this. Some, in fact, make her sound like a cheerleader for Obama Care.

Kagan has given no indication that she will recuse herself. Carrie Severino, chief counsel of the Judicial Crisis Network and expert on judicial nominations, says that "Kagan took early and aggressive action to involve her office in Obama Care and was part of the deliberative process in the Obama Care defense strategy." Severino accuses Kagan of "playing coach and umpire in the same game." In a bizarre contrast, some supporters of Obama Care have been calling for Clarence Thomas to recuse himself because his wife works for the Heritage Foundation.

Lake County Right to Life urges its members to pray for individual Justices of the Supreme Court and also to pray that justice will be prevail.

Pretty much everyone who has read or heard stories from the Bible, have all heard the well known story of two women who sought a judgment from King Solomon over a baby. One woman had apparently rolled over on her baby during the night and smothered it, or perhaps it had died of crib-death, unknown at the time. Either way, there were now two mothers, one child alive, another child dead, who were both fighting over the live child.

Today in the news, there are again two mothers, with one child alive and one dead. The 1st mother from Hanover Park, Illinois, is being held without bail on first-degree murder and concealment of the homicide of her own newborn baby boy. Nineteen year old Jessica Cruz walked into a Salvation Army store on November 4th and asked to use the employee bathroom, where she then gave birth to a 6 lb. baby boy, strangled him, and threw him in the garbage can.

Cruz had just recently graduated from high school, and had been hiding the pregnancy from everyone, except the baby's father. As Cruz is held, awaiting to appear in court, we do not yet know her full story. Whatever drove her to commit such a heinous act? Was she afraid of parents? Had her boyfriend abandoned her? We don't yet know the full story of what Cruz was going through, which led her to savagely murder her own baby. We know abortion proponents use the argument of the stresses and fears and dangers that women suffer from pregnancy, to justify legalized killing of unborn babies. But, as of yet, we do not know Cruz' story.

That aside, let's look at the other young mother, the 2nd mother, who was also experiencing stress, fears, dangers and abandonment, and what she "chose" to do about her unexpected pregnancy. Bethany Saros had just been deployed to Iraq, when she discovered she was pregnant. The contraceptive she had used, failed, and her boyfriend, the father of the child, broke his promise to stand by her and abandoned her. Furthermore, as a soldier in the military, particularly one who had just been deployed to a war-zone, she experienced "unspoken pressure" to "abort" her child, so that she could "carry on with the mission".

Saros had been experiencing stresses and trials for quite some time, as she had gone through an abusive marriage, a contentious divorce and another failed relationship. If that wasn't enough, she had also recently been raped by a co-worker, and was struggling with her own alcohol problem. Then, upon just arriving in Iraq, she discovers she is with child.

Her boyfriend asked her, "Are you going to keep it?" To which she answered, "YES." "I can't do an abortion, I just can't." At which point, even though he had promised to stand by her, his promise proved meaningless, and she found herself, pregnant, abandoned and halfway around the world from home. She felt as though her whole world had "come crashing down." Is that enough stress, fear and danger for ya? Planned Parenthood would have welcomed her into one of their clinics with open arms.

But despite all these obstacles, Saros was determined to keep her child stating, "I had let everyone around me down." But I wasn't going to let the little person snuggled up in my belly down."

Back to the Bible story. It is not really completely clear how the one woman's baby died, though I doubt she had strangled it. Yet, upon discovering her baby had died during the night, she decides she is simply going to steal the other woman's baby. And so, they both end up in the famous court of King Solomon; who then has to choose, which woman is the "true mother". Without DNA tests, King Solomon relies on the gift of wisdom with which God had endowed him, and he comes up with a test to prove who is the true mother. He declares that the baby shall be cut in two, and half given to each woman. We know that one mother immediately praised King Solomon for such a wise judgement, and went right along with the idea of killing the baby. But, the other woman cried for the child to be spared, even telling the King he could give it to the other mother, rather than see it be killed. Of course for those who know their Bible stories, King Solomon then states, that this was the "true mother", and she is awarded her baby.

Fast forward to today - how are these two stories connected? Well, today's two mothers are not in the court of King Solomon. One of the babies did not die by it's own mother's hand, and she is not seeking to steal the other woman's baby. But, the connection here is simply in how King Solomon is able to draw out what true motherhood really is. Whichever woman had been the true birth mother in the story, is not even at the heart of the question. A true mother, by King Solomon's measuring stick, is simply one who is willing to sacrifice for her own child, instead of only looking out for herself.

Between these two mothers in today's blog, Cruz vs Saros, one, Jessica Cruz was willing to go to the most violent lengths, rather than face whatever challenges the birth of her baby might pose; while the other, Bethany Saros, was willing to give her baby life, against all odds. She was willing to protect the life of her child, no matter what the personal cost was to herself.

All women faced with an out of wedlock pregnancy, can face embarrassment and shame in one way or another. But Bethany Saros states, "One day, my son will be old enough to ask me questions, and I want to be able to tell him that I gave him the best life I possibly could. At the end of the day, my son will be the only person I will have to explain myself to."

In today's abortion age, the test of true motherhood is based on something other than "sacrifice" as in King Solomon's time. All parents today, view parenthood as simply having something to do with, having some little progeny, that they can give soccer lessons, I-PODs and a college degree; and of course all the brand-name clothing of the day. The idea that the child might come along unscripted, and put a crimp in all these grandiose plans, is just unthinkable. And abortion or murder (what's the difference) in a Salvation Army store, or in a Planned Parenthood clinic, seems the judgement of today.

At the end of the day, there's not a lot of difference between a woman strangling her newborn in a bathroom, and a doctor sucking it's brains out, just because it's head has not presented itself. Abortion is murder, not choice. What would King Solomon say about abortion? Would he judge this to be the act of "true motherhood".

Monday, November 14, 2011

I'm on a rant! it's a deep thinking rant. What is an innocent human life worth in this day and age? Why are we surprised at the Penn State child abuse scandal? Since the Roe v Wade decision, the value of innocent life has disappeared in America and most of the"once" civilized world.

When a mother can have her own child violently destroyed and ripped from her own body, why are we surprised to hear of children being murdered by their own parents, and stories like the Penn State child sex-abuse scandal?

Abortion has affected our society in so many ways, it's getting hard to keep track. The Penn State scandal, is a really sad indication of something that most of us keep wanting to avoid. That is, you cannot disrespect one innocent life, without losing the respect for all innocents.

Children have become commodities to be bought and sold by the sperm and egg donation mentality of today. And how does one look at a commodity? It's something that is expendable, or even disposable, and certainly only there for the mere satisfaction and gratification of it's owner and others, such as those who are supposed to be caring for the owner's property, such as a priest, minister, teacher or coach.

So let's look at the Penn State scandal in light of this hedonistic attitude and summarize the scandal. An icon at Penn State has been accused of covering up and failing to report pedophilia in the football locker room. The icon we're talking about has been a head coach of the Nittanny Lions from 1966 through 2011. In fact, he holds the record for the most victories by an FBS footbatll coach. He coached 5 undefeated teams that won major ball games, and in 2007 was inducted into the college Hall of Fame. Imagine the $$$$$$ to the University from such a sterling career. So what was really being protected here with this cover up?

I won't bore you with grissly details of who did what to whom, suffice it to say, the entire coaching staff led by JoePa, failed at a fundamental level to protect an innocent 10 yr. old child from being sodomized. Moreover, Joe Paterno himself is a deeply devoted Catholic family man, who is well known for his devotion to and love for his own children and granchildren. In fact, his nickname on campus and especially used by all of his players, ages 18 thru 25, was JoePa. Wow! What a father figure JoePa has turned out to be.

Forgive me, but this reminds me of the Nazis in World War II Germany, who had great fraternal love and devotion for their own children, while at the same time, could cold bloodily, without any feeling whatsoever, brutally torture and murder millions of other parent's children in the Holocaust. Think this is too harsh a correlation? I don't. What does it take for this kind of disregard of another man's children?

Well, we've already said that the abortion mentality has certainly led to a decrease in the value of innocent life, but there is another element here. Remember the age old Gladiator mentality of the ancient Greek and Roman Empires. We have reverted to the same pagan hedonistic worship of "The Games". All other considerations are forfeit.

Our sports players and coaches are paid obscene amounts of money, more than doctors and scientific researchers! Everyone loved OJ Simpson. No one wanted to believe anything bad about the guy ... even when he brutally murdered his wife and another man ... and at the end of the day, he was found innocent! Other sports players who have raped women, and even if found guilty in our court system, were still deemed innocent in the court of public opinion. Let's face it, it's the good ol boy system. And in the court of public opinion, once again, Joe Paterno is being deemed a martyr, as rioters protest his being fired.

Just as in the court of public opinion, abortion is deemed an acceptable personal choice ... simply a matter between a woman and her doctor ... never mind that she very rarely sees the doctor ... now, watching the Friday night riot on Penn State's campus, in protest of JoePas demise as head coach, I'm not surprised that abortion has remained legal for 38 years. With the attitude exhibited by the rioters and the press, it would now seem that the sodomy of children is also acceptable behavior in the court of public opinion ... just a matter between a young boy and his coach. And this leads to another element. That being the overwhelming acceptance of the homosexual proclivity.

Ok, at the risk of being a be a bit of a gay-basher here, let's be honest. It's not heterosexual pedophilia we are talking about. But, again, that's another taboo subject. One cannot call a spade a spade, at all, anymore in this society. We are so politically correct, that we're willing to sacrifice innocents in and outside of the womb.

Any society where morality declines and reverts to barbarism, who pays the price?

Sunday, November 13, 2011

As we continue, or more to the point as American women
continue to desensitize their natural reproductive imperative, with
birth control and abortion, a looming crisis is developing across the Western
and in some cases Asian demography.

China is experiencing an unbalanced
female to male population, leaving much of the young men
without marriage partners. This creates social and political instability. The
"one child" policy of communist China and soon America (if the
totalitarians in our nation have their way) has circumvented God's will to go
out and be plentiful. When a government and their citizens work in the Natural
and Moral Law, there is peace and security for that nation, When they do not
there is no peace and no security. Our nation is fast becoming a house of
cards built in the sand of human egocentricity and elitist leadership. This is the natural extension of spoiled baby boomers

Increasingly our brave, our strong, our
productive, and our successful like Gulliver are being tied and hamstrung and
blamed by the unproductive no nothing
elite Lilliputians who purport to have a law and an answer for all of
the woes they created in the first place.

Abortion and contraception are literally killing off our
population, our moral persuasion; it is
increasing our moral ambivalence, indecisiveness, and political
contention. Our nation must be viewed holistically. These parts of
our souls, our morality, culture, religiosity, of what is
sacred (if anything) are internal to the American
heart and mind, while the economy and the social contract are their
extensions.

Ahh, but Jesus said it much better:
"..where your treasure is there your heart is also."

Where is America's treasure? I say
in the dumpsters of abortion centers.

And so in 2005 John Maudlin wrote a
bookBull’s Eye Investing.
The forward of this book was included in a commentary piece at the
website whiskey and gunpowder.

For me this is not so much a book about
investing but much much more about national suicide
resulting from eugenics, abortion, and contraception. It is about a war of
spiritual attrition which within America is gradually and purposely being lost
by Obama and his sycophants.

You say to yourself ,"Whiskey and
Gunpowder is a website?" Eh! I don't know.. maybe sumptin to do with
colonial history, but the web site is about:

OK, I'm really mad this time. And let me explain that this is not about whether I am personally for or against the death penalty. I reserve my personal opinion at this time, and am not making a statement on that issue one way or the other. That's not the point of this blog, and that's not what I'm mad about. I'm mad about people who equate the death penalty with the abortion issue, because it is the most unjust equation I have ever heard!

There was a phrase coined by a recent Catholic Cardinal, "the seamless garment", meant to connect and blend multiple issues with the abortion issue. How many times have I heard it said that abortion is a "single" issue. Now, today, a gentleman in my own church told me he refused to support our local pro-life organization; because it was not also including the death penalty issue. This really has my ire up.

For those of you who are against the death penalty, that's all well and good, and you're entitled to your opinion; and if you wish you can join an anti-death penalty crusade. I for one am simply enraged that this gentleman, in my own church, would refuse to help an organization that fights to save innocent unborn babies, because he feels some convicted murderer's life should be equated with that of the unborn child's life.

Excuse me! You mean to tell me, that you're going to let innocent unborn babies continue to be butchered and murdered in their mother's wombs, until all the death row inmates have their sentences commuted?

Ok, let's review. A suspected murderer has rights. He is allowed to be judged in a court of law, by a jury of his piers, with legal counsel at his side. Even after his conviction, he is allowed appeals upon appeals ... leading up to and including the actual date of his scheduled execution. On the day of his scheduled execution, he is even permitted spiritual comfort and counsel with a priest or minister of his preference. He is given choice of his favorite foods for a last meal. He is also allowed visits from his family and friends, in order to say his goodbyes. Even at the moment of his execution, he is allowed a final statement of his choosing, by being asked if he has any last words. All along, he is given ample time to make his peace with society, his victim or victims, his family and his God. From beginning to end, ample care is taken to assure that all of his rights are afforded him ... more rights certainly than he afforded his victim or victims.

Now, let's review the unborn baby in the womb's rights. NONE! Let's review, the unborn baby in the womb's legal counsel. NONE! Let's review whether there is a jury to adjudicate the unborn child's' fate. NONE! Let's review how many appeals the unborn child has. NONE! Let's review who the child gets to say goodbye to. NO ONE! Let's review the unborn child's last words. HE NEVER GOT A CHANCE TO SPEAK HIS FIRST WORDS! Last but not least ... let's review the GUILT OF THE CHILD IN THE WOMB .... NONE! THERE IS NO GUILT ... THE CHILD IS COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY INNOCENT!

Whether you are for or against the death penalty, please explain to me how the abortion issue and the death penalty issue are the same, and how one can be equated with the other?

Monday, November 7, 2011

Horror of horrors, as a newborn baby boy is found dead and discarded in a garbage can at a Salvation Army store, by one of the store's employees. Weighing 6 lbs. and 11 oz. the baby was born on Friday in the store's restroom, according to Streamwood Police Cmdr. Dan Barnes. It was reported that the mother gave birth to the baby, and then strangled it to death before disposing of it in a trash can.

This is the 2nd baby to be discarded in the past couple weeks, as another newborn infant was left in a shopping bag at a church in Schaumburg on October 26th. But at least that baby had not been strangled to death by its' own mother; who apparently believed that someone at the church would come along and find it. Fortunately someone heard the child's cries in enough time to save it.

Why this young woman felt she needed to, not only abandon, but murder
her newborn infant, is a sign of the times in this Culture of Death. Due
to abortion, life has become so cheap and disposable, are we surprised?
When a mother can kill her child inside the womb, what's the difference killing it outside the womb? The age
of abortion has created a mind-set which has relegated the child in the womb to a mere waste product to be eliminated from a woman's body. It's just a short step after that, to considering the child as a "waste product" shortly after it has been born. The child's humanity has been stripped away, so that it no longer resembles anything which would evoke sympathy, even from its' own mother.

The biggest tragedy to all of this, is that today, there was no reason for either mother to feel they needed to abandon, much less kill off their newborn, as Illinois offers a safe, legal option to unsafe infant abandonment. Illinois' Safe Haven Law, The Abandoned Newborn Infant Protection Act, was written to provide a safe alternative to abandonment for Illinois parents who feel unable to cope or care for their newborn baby. It offers "safe havens" for such newborns, with No Shame and No Blame.

The Abandoned Newborn Infant Protection Act says that parents who do not harm their babies cannot be prosecuted for abandonment, if they bring their newborn (30 days old or younger) to any hospital, emergency care facility, police station or staffed fire station in Illinois, and hand their baby over to a staff member, with no shame or blame.After handing over your baby to one of these designated "safe places", you then have 60 days in which to return, before you forfeit your parental rights, and your baby can then be adopted.

Furthermore, when you relinquish your baby at a hospital, you may also be offered medical care and or counseling for yourself. Trained hospital staff members can also help you cope and make sure you understand your rights and options. But if you do not wish these services, you may simply walk away, with No Shame and No Blame.

And YES, you can keep your baby a secret ... as well as safe. Once again, as long as you have not harmed your newborn, you may relinquish your infant to any "safe place" and simply walk away, with No Shame and No Blame. No one need ever know, and your baby will be safe!

It is imperative that people learn and tell others about The Abandoned Newborn Infant Protection Act. Please go here to learn more, and also discover Other States that have Safe Haven Laws ...
www.saveabandonedbabies.org.

Friday, November 4, 2011

Senate Moves to Overturn Defense of Marriage Act

Respect for Marriage Act Intentionally Misleading

Today the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee will begin debate on S598, the Respect for Marriage Act of 2011. Sponsored by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), the title of the bill is confusing. Using the word "respect" instead of "defense," it sounds very much like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). People might think it is something similar, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Respect for Marriage Act would actually overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.

S598 is supported by the ACLU and gay organizations. It is opposed by some Tea Party organizations, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defense Fund.

Illinois Senator Dick Durbin is a member of the Judiciary Committee and a co-sponsor of the bill. In fact, all ten Democratic members of the committee support the bill, so even if all eight Republicans oppose it, it is sure to make it out of committee. Ironically, many of the 30 Senators co-sponsoring the bill voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

It is still important to call Senator Durbin to let him know how you stand on this bill. Please call our other Senator, Mark Kirk, and urge him to vote no on S598. Ask him to please continue to support the Defense of Marriage Act as passed in 1996.

Only 5 states permit same-sex marriage. In 30 states, such unions are constitutionally banned. In explaining her support of DOMA recently, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) noted that it "was enacted by Congress in order to protect individual states and their laws against same sex marriages."

While S598 is touted as ensuring "respect for State regulation of marriage," in reality it would do the opposite. Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy at the Family Research Council, says, "The bill would repeal both parts of the Defense of Marriage Act so that it would make it much easier to force other states to recognize same-sex marriage."

Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) in Washington, DC, testified before the Senate about this bill in July. He explained that "far from respecting marriage, S.598 would empty the term of any core content" and "would include anything that any state, now or in the future, recognized as marriage." He added that this would have the "real world consequences" of once again allowing polygamy. In the 19th Century, polygamy was recognized as being incompatible with democracy, and anti-polygamy provisions were a condition of statehood for Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma. Whelan added that Section 3 of the Respect for Marriage Act would require taxpayers in states that maintain traditional marriage laws to subsidize the provision of federal benefits to same-sex unions or polygamous marriages recognized by any other state.

Whelan also discussed President Obama's responsibility to defend DOMA under Article II of the Constitution. His refusal to uphold DOMA is not just breaking a campaign promise, it is also unconstitutional. Whelan stated that "an administration may not work to overturn a law merely because they disagree with it from a public policy perspective (i.e. ideology)."

To read the full comments of Edward Whelan as well as those of Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defense fund and Tom Minnery of CitizenLink, CLICK HERE.

Contact information for Senators Durbin and Kirk is in the column on the left. You may also wish to register your opinion on this legislation at the following site: CLICK HERE

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Ok, so what's the answer? As a young girl, I remember when the birth control pill first came out. Women in my neighborhood rushed to put their 14 yr. old daughters on the pill, the premise being that it would regulate their menses. I think an underlying motive, was that it would also relieve a parent's fears of the embarrassment and hassle involved with their teenage daughter's possible pregnancy. The result was that these girls, almost immediately, became sexually promiscuous! I do not exaggerate. My girlfriends who began taking birth control pills, lost their virginity ex-post haste.

Now, today, the question is whether or not to vaccinate our pubescent children against a widely prevalent sexually transmitted disease, known as Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). It is only through willful behavior that the disease can be contracted. Today's parents must now decide, as with the women of the early days of the Pill, whether or not they need to give something to their child, which is really a behavioral concern.

First of all, as I can personally attest, my girlfriends whose mothers put them on the pill, were given a sort of subliminal message that their mothers had already assumed their daughter would not remain a virgin. The result was that they definitely did not remain virgins. A similar dilemma presents itself with a parent choosing to vaccinate their child against a sexually communicable disease. Once again, what is the child to interpret from this?

The tangle to this question though is not easy to avoid. Today, more than ever before, even children from the best and most faith-filled families have been succumbing to peer pressure to become sexually active. And even if your son or daughter remains a virgin till marriage, there is no such guarantee with their future spouses. So, with the numbers of the CDC showing astronomical rises in the occurrence of cancers that are caused by HPV, does a concerned and loving parent take the risk of vaccinating a child against possible future behavior, not only on the part of their own child, but on the part of their child's future spouse? What are the risks to this vaccine? And once again, as with the pill, will this choice send a message to the child that the parents have already assumed they will be sexually active before marriage? Oh what a tangled web are the consequences of sin! Yes, let's call it sin, because that is what it is!

Well, I would like to at least give parents one equation here to this question. And that question regards the efficacy of the vaccine itself. First of all, the HPV vaccine has been being widely used without sufficient evidence as to whether or not it is even effective! Moreover, the vaccine has been reported to have caused multiple deaths and other serious side-effects.

Of course, people get sick and some people can die from all vaccines. It's a numbers game. Small Pox was successfully eradicated due to an aggressive world-wide campaign of immunization. I recall as a child, the Polio epidemics, which would keep my mother scared out of her wits half the time, whenever we kids got a sore throat. She was extremely thankful for the Polio vaccines which came out against the disease. The efficacy of both the Small Pox and Polio vaccines greatly outweighed their risks.

So, in my opinion, the bottom line is still the risks verses the results. If parents are going to be forced to decide whether or not to vaccinate their child for a "behavioral" disease, and all the subliminal messages that gives their child, shouldn't they at least be assured that the vaccine's effectiveness outweighs it's risks?

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Next November, Massachusetts voters will decide via ballot initiative whether to allow physician-assisted suicide.The Death with Dignity Act is modeled closely on an initiative passed by Washington State voters in 2008.In states that have taken up these laws, pro-life groups, religious groups, and advocates for the disabled have fought them.Massachusetts is a heavily Catholic state, and Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley of Boston called the act “a corruption of the medical profession that violates the Hippocratic Oath.”

National Right to Life calls the proposed Massachusetts act “a recipe for elder abuse.”Key provisions of the act include that an heir, who will benefit financially from a patient’s death, is allowed to actively help sign the patient up for the lethal dose.

In the United States, assisted suicide is legal only in Washington and Oregon.In both states, the law was enacted through a ballot initiative.In 2010, the Montana Supreme Court’s Baxter decision did not legalize assisted suicide but gave physicians, if prosecuted, a potential defense.A law that would have allowed assisted suicide in Montana went down to defeat in February.

In addition to Massachusetts, pro-euthanasia activists are currently mobilizing in Hawaii and Vermont.Compassion & Choices, a pro-euthanasia activist group, has a new campaign claiming that assisted suicide is already legal in Hawaii.Ironically, assisted suicide bills have repeatedly gone down to defeat in Hawaii, most recently on February 7, 2011.In Vermont, a bill has been introduced in the state legislature.

No assisted suicide law has yet made it through any state legislature.Besides the failed bills in Montana and Hawaii, this year an assisted suicide bill was defeated in New Hampshire.Idaho enacted a statute to strengthen its law against assisted suicide.Earlier pro-euthanasia bills failed in Michigan and Maine.

Since assisted suicide has been legalized in Oregon, there have been reports of cancer patients being denied medical treatments by the Oregon Health Plan but offered suicide drugs instead.People voted in favor of the law because they thought they were giving themselves a right to a dignified death.What they didn’t anticipate was that they were giving health plans the right to cut corners on their treatment.

Since its founding in 1973, Lake County Right to Life has opposed euthanasia with the same conviction with which it opposes abortion.Currently, Illinois law specifically prohibits assisted suicide. Lake County Right to Life will continue to resist any attempts to overturn this law.